Wednesday, May 29, 2013

The
San Jose Mercury news is reporting that IDC (Intl. Data Corp) predicts 2013
will bring more bad news for the PC. The
de facto barometer of consumer markets has revised its latest estimate for
yearly PC sales downward. What was
expected to be a 1.3% decline has now been projected to be more like 7.8%.

The blame is placed squarely on an increase in tablet
sales. With 229.3 million expected this
year IDC has gone so far as to predict tablet sales to outpace the entirety of
the PC market by 2015.

Unfortunately, the news is both obvious and misplaced.

Comparing sales of the Galaxy Note to a laptop is akin to
comparing a fine wine to a 44 ounce fountain drink.

Tablets are consumer devices more on par with their
Smartphone cousins than any laptop. In
a market sense they are disposable. Conversely,
laptops and the PC market in general operate on a much longer replacement cycle. It's not uncommon, for example, for the average tech savvy consumer to
purchase 2 tablets during the lifespan of one laptop.

These days nobody would seriously consider paying upwards of
$1000 for a laptop just to browse the web and check their email when a $300
tablet will do. It's a given that such
mundane mobility tasks have been ceded to the smart device market.

As such, the decline of PC market share is to be expected
but isn't quite the death knell the tech punditry keeps drumming on about. Rather it's a realignment of markets defined
by their functionality instead of their volume and that's as it should be.

A Surface Pro is not a competitor to any IPAD even though
both claim a tablet form factor. Their
purposes are distinct and so are their customers.

In a sense, the cheap, underpowered laptop of yesterday is the
progenitor of today's tablet which now occupies it's place in the market. A classic case of technological evolution and
natural selection if ever there was one.

Monday, May 13, 2013

Last week Senator John McCain (R-AZ) took to the Senate
floor with a proposal that seeks to lower your cable TV bill. His proposal is
to allow anyone who has cable or satellite television service to do something previously
unheard of in the industry. That is,
only pay for what they want to watch.

"...rather
than being able to pick smaller packages or choose the channels they want,
consumers are still forced to purchase larger and larger packages of channels
no matter how few they actually watch. This says to me that the market isn't working."

The
Senate Commerce committee is scheduled to take up McCain's bill in a hearing on
Tuesday (5-14.)

McCain's assertion is based on a solid premise. Look at any cable or satellite TV provider
and you find that all their programming is bundled into packages or tiers. The only a la' carte options you have are for
the so-called premium stations like HBO or Showtime which by themselves can
cost an additional $10 a month or more and in some cases also come as part of a
bundle.

Gone are the days of $20/mo basic cable. A subscriber can easily find a bill of $50 or
more per month with no premium channels.
Add HBO and a few HD channels and that bill is closer to $125.

In the end you ultimately end up subsidizing channels you don't
watch. That's because providers
negotiate not with HBO or AMC but rather their parent companies like Viacom and
Time Warner. It's an all or nothing deal
that can cause a disagreement over licensing fees on one channel to affect a
dozen others. That's why a tiffbetween a service like DirectTV and Viacom leaves subscribers with multiple blank
channels instead of content.

Cable industry lobbyists are against McCain's proposal
claiming it's a "lose-lose" for both customers and providers as evidenced
in an official statement from the National Cable and Telecommunications
Association.

Of
course that assumes that the "wider array" is something you actually
care to watch. Even if you don't, you're going to pay for it anyway and that's
the logic of their claimed "win-win."

This
is the rationale that's led to cord cutters who've turned primarily to online
media sources like NetFlix and Hulu.
Unfortunately, legitimate online sources still can only offer a fraction
of the content enjoyed by the traditional delivery model. Unless you've got an HBO subscription, for
example, you're not going to see "Game of Thrones" on the same day it
airs unless you turn to illegitimate sources.

That's
due to a reluctance of channel owners like Viacom to embrace online options
that would lead to greater consumer choice but a less predictable revenue
model. It's flawed logic, however.

If you're a cord cutter it's probably not of any great
consequence to you about what happens to
pay TV subscription rates but you're going to be affected all the same.

With online bellwethers like YouTube launching paid channels it may seem like online TV options are
poised to offer what traditional pay TV won't.
If the industry is forced into
the a la' carte model, however, online TV will soon end up looking like it's broadcast
predecessor.

You may be able to pick and choose from a few sources but likely
run headlong into the same bundling schemes as traditional pay TV. That's because the channels don't own the
content, their parent company does and it's up to them to decide how it gets
distributed.

Add in the more targeted paid online options and soon you'll
be paying as much if not more than if you'd never cut that cable. Lest we forget data caps imposed by most
Internet providers that could result in a nasty surprise in that bill if you
enjoy HD content.

In short, the old guard of broadcast television has nothing
to fear as one way or another we'll still end up paying more no matter how we
choose to view their content.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Amy Hood, Microsoft's new CFO. It's a name I'm sure nobody knows outside of
financial circles. To the executive
suites of Microsoft, however, nothing could be further from the truth. After all, her last job was CFO of the business division which just so happens to be
the most profitable but the least glamorous.

Let's be honest here, it's unlikely Chairman Ballmer will be leaping across a
stage to announce a new server product anytime soon.

If you're a Microsoft shareholder fatigued over an incessant
news cycle bent on denouncing Windows 8,however, it's likely you're
delighted. Hood not only oversaw the
primary cash cow that nobody talks about, she also served as Chief of Staff for
the Server and Tools unit.

More than just chief bean counter her job was to set the
tone for Wall Street in all things Microsoft Enterprise and she knew from
whence she spoke.

Now her job is to do the same thing companywide and she's
perfect for it. Microsoft owns the
Enterprise for most of the Fortune 500 and that's the story they want to
tell. Consumers likely won't care about
who's CFO but they don't buy Microsoft shares either.

Let the pundits go on about the botched launch of Windows 8
and an interface only a video poker machine could love. In the end it's the enterprise that will keep
Microsoft viable long after Windows 8 is as distant a memory as new formula Coca-Cola.

Saturday, May 4, 2013

Anyone who knows me well has heard me utter the phrase,
"mediocrity is the standard" more than once and usually with
disgust.

So what do I mean by that?

To be blunt, the standard of mediocrity means blundering
through life never attempting to do more than the bare minimum. It's a fallback position that many in the
working world spend their entire careers operating from.

It usually happens when someone takes a position they may be
qualified for but have no real interest in.
How such a person can rise to power when a more engaged candidate
doesn't is usually indicative of a systematic problem within the organization. In short, everyone up the management chain is
similarly disinterested and will protect themselves from discovery.

If one operates under the standard of mediocrity for a long enough period of time they eventually assume that it's the status quo. This is the disability of the narrow mind
within the context of employment. Note that racism, elitism and other societal 'isms are similar in that all effectively cripple higher reasoning.

Thus we see the initial stages of the "dominos of
disaster" when practitioners of the mediocrity standard run headlong into more engaged individuals.

When confronted with a potential threat to the status quo of
mediocrity, the disability becomes readily apparent. It surfaces in confrontational behaviors and
rejection of information not contained within their narrow focus even when
compatible with stated organizational goals.

In effect, the inability to think "outside the
box" regardless of how beneficial the outcome will prevent the afflicted individual from acting reasonably.

If it sounds like a medical or psychological condition it
is. In fact it's pathological in an
organizational sense.

This is the dilemma that the long term and formerly self
employed face when interviewing with afflicted organizations. Candidates with such a backgrounds are
considered inferior and suspect regardless of experience, accomplishments or evidence to
the contrary.

Take the example of the former self-employed consultant now interviewing
for a regular full time position. In
this case the candidate may get through HR and lower level managers but find opposition from senior
management. Even before the first
handshake is extended the candidate is already in a diminished position.

Overcoming the condition is virtually impossible as any
concession the candidate asserts is assumed to be suspect if not disingenuous. The only recourse for
the candidate is to try to frame their qualifications within the narrow context of
the organizational pathology.

At this point it's usually a pointless exercise to proceed any further since the organizational dysfunction curtails higher reasoning and shortens attention spans. This is most blatantly evidenced by repeated questioning about the same topic, yawning and in some cases snoring.

Unfortunately, most organizations suffer the affliction and have even elevated it to a de facto mission statement. It's a common pathogen meaning you're going to encounter a lot of it in
the corporate world regardless of your job function.

If you do encounter
such an organization (and you will) and still wish to persist in your efforts to join it you can
employ the following tactics. Note that
they will likely be unsuccessful but more productive than attempting to alert the afflicted to their condition.

·Lie
- You can hope they won't check your
background and enter the organization with stealth if not outright
deception. With the easy access to
information and most organizations requiring a formal background check it's
likely you won't succeed past the first interview. If the organization is dysfunctional enough, however,
they may respond well to a cleverly crafted deception.

·Debate-
This tactic will likely have even less of a chance of success than deception
but at least you'll be comforted in the knowledge that you were completely
truthful. The tactic involves countering
objections to your qualifications by crafting your responses to fit the narrow
focus of the afflicted organization. For
example, when confronted with a concern about work ethic especially if your career consists
primarily of self employment try this. Assert the merits of personal responsibility and
client satisfaction necessary to run a successful small business. It also wouldn't hurt to mention that you're a firm believer in trickle-down economics and would jump at the chance to be standing on the bottom rung with awaiting arms outstretched. Keep in mind, however, that afflicted
organizations and their management have limited capability to engage in higher
reasoning so keep your responses short and at roughly the 6th grade level.

·Violence
- Only useful if the prospects of arrest and incarceration hold no fear for
you.

·Submission
- In short, be an apologist for your entire career and essentially "throw
yourself on the mercy of the court."
In a severely afflicted organization with candidates less qualified than
yourself this may be the most effective tactic.
Be aware, however, that should you secure the position you will likely
find it unfulfilling. Still, the
knowledge that mediocre performance is the status quo may eventually make your stay more
tolerable. Beware the danger of
becoming infected with the Disability of the Narrow mind, however, as it will alter you on a cellular level. Then again, once infected you
will likely become anesthetized to its ill effects and become blissfully unaware of it. This is especially true if the position offers a good prescription drug program.

·Defiance
- This is similar to the Violence option above except the authorities aren't
involved. It's not so much a display of emotional outbursts as an attempt to make the hiring manager feel stupid. The desired outcome of
this tactic is to temporarily shock management out of their disability by forcing
undeniable logic on them. Your ultimate
goal is to convince the hiring manager that you are the change needed to further
organizational goals. Unfortunately,
this tactic has only been shown to work in the movie Office Space.

In short, afflicted organizations should be avoided if at
all possible. Otherwise damage to your
career and possibly your psyche could result.

Friday, May 3, 2013

Nothing uniquely special about it
but when I opened it I found the contents magical.

It contained a collection of memories in the form of some
old Atari computers. I'm not talking
about an old 2600 or a Jaguar but rather a collection of those old 8 bit
wonders from the late 70's and early 80's.
They have names like 800, 130XE and 800XL.

I look on them with the same reverence someone a few decades
younger may look on a Nintendo 64 or their first Mac. They represent a time when technology
couldn't come close to our imagination but we tried anyway.

I think those of my age are far more fortunate,
however. If you grew up in the late 70's
and early 80's and had any interest in computers then you understand what I
mean. I've been privileged to witness
the evolution of personal computers from little more than a novelty to an
invaluable tool.

Strange how things have come full circle in the so-called
"post-PC" era of tablets and the Smartphone. To listen to the pundits you'd think we were
on the verge of personal computers becoming a novelty again.

To some extent they're right. There's not much mystery to computers
anymore and I doubt anyone will ever look upon their laptop with the same
nostalgia I feel for that box full of Atari's.

When I was growing up I was aware that I was in the midst of
a sea change. When I was small there
were no electronic games or home computers.
The few that existed were crude
and more expensive than any suburban middle class parent could justify.

Childhood was occupied by exploring the world contained
within a few square blocks of my house.
Friends, adventures and fun were all very much real. No virtualization allowed aside from what
came from my own imagination.

Atari 410 Recorder

When I got a little older I found myself in the middle of an
explosion of technology. The first hand held games soon gave way to the first game
consoles and finally my box of Atari memories.

It was nothing short of amazing.
Turn on the power switch and I could play a game or if I had the
patience, I could write my own.

I remember spending hours entering hundreds of lines of code
from a magazine article knowing that one mistyped character could make it all
for naught.

Looking back now, I was a
data entry clerk at 12 and didn't even know it.

By today's standards using such dinosaurs was a tedious and
laborious affair. Hours of work could be
lost seemingly without reason. Cassette
tapes and later floppy disks made for a poor archive with more than a few hours
of feverish work lost because of them.
"Save now and save often" became a mantra.

I doubt today's teenagers would tolerate the shortcomings of
early home computers for long. Maybe
that's where I learned the patience that I rarely see in those that came after
me. Today's world is geared toward
instant gratification. Even those of
modest means can instantly satisfy a whim with an Internet connected
device. A feat that would take me weeks
in my youth if it was possible at all.

Things moved quickly and before you knew it technology was
advancing at an exponential pace. The
novelty was wearing off but it was still an exciting time. The first modems allowed us to reach out to
those similarly enamored. The BBS or
Bulletin Board System was the precursor to the Internet most evident in the
millions of online forums that exist to this day.

Atari 130XE

It seemed every corner had a computer store and its aisles
contained the stuff of dreams. Computers,
Software and periodicals about them seemed to be everywhere.

Technology itself was the entertainment medium. Just standing in the middle of a Federated
Department store or a Radio Shack was better than a ticket to Star Wars with a
free pizza.

Even movies and television reflected the culture. Tron
was revolutionary for its visual style. Wargames made millions of parents
nervous about their kid's computing habits.
Both films showed how technology had moved out of the dusty confines of
universities and corporations and into popular culture.

By the time the 90's came around the idea of personal
computing was no longer in the hands of hobbyists or tinkerers. They were as commonplace as traffic during
rush hour.

Suddenly the computer store on the corner closed replaced by
Supermarket-sized electronics stores like CompUSA and Circuit City. Technology had become commoditized, outsourced
and disposable.

Computers weren't fun anymore, they were just tools. Cold instruments hailed as revolutionizing a
workforce. In reality, performing the
same mundane tasks as their ancestors: pen and paper, abacus and
calculator.

Instead of being a catalyst to our imagination, computers
and technology in general rarely rise above the menial anymore. Smarter, faster but with no imagination there
is no substance.

A faster computer can calculate your spreadsheet in seconds. A faster Internet connection can connect you
to anything the online world can offer assuming there's anything worth
seeing.

Atari 800XL

Technology isn't the catalyst for change I'd hoped for in my
youth. It's little more than a new means
to do the same old crap and that's the real tragedy.